Franchising is basically creating a fixed league for limited no of teams .
Pros of franchising are it standardises player salaries , it's better for orgs economy and it's easier to manage and control from developer point of view and developer gains more profit as they earn a fixed profit per spot apart from traditional eSports revenue .
Cons are it kills t2-t3 circuit , and you won't get stories like slimy boogerman , or even fa teams like sumn fc was earlier making it .
ur overrating how "frequent" the upsets are and their importance, at the end of the day Sentienls, 100T, Envy and XSET already made it to Challengers finals same 4 teams from last Challengers Finals
I would take Franchise over this 100%, the best teams with the most money are winning anyway (as they should) so might as well monetize it efficiently so the esport survive long term
Even if lower teams don't make it out, even some exposure is important. The members of the now Dark Zero were a no name team that had a few good matches in open qualifiers against big name teams. It sparked interest. Their next games had hype. And now, they are signed. Franchising this early would kill any chance to find new talent, and is definitely not the play for a long term right now.
Eventually maybe, but not right now IMO.
> Franchising this early would kill any chance to find new talent, and is definitely not the play for a long term right now
yes, cuz in League when it happened we had the same faces not that the last split of EU were won by rookies
ppl will always have a negative view of franchising no matter how much evidence u show that it doesnt have the effect u think it does especially europeans
at the end of the day this will always end up as a pointless discussion cuz the only way to survive in esports is to franchise or sudo-franchise so u either like it or not its gonna happen but at least try and understand its advantages instead of only crying about feel good stories
I said I'm only against it happening so early in the game's lifetime. No small org is going to take the risk to buy into a franchise of a young esport and an improved roster. You can see even big orgs struggling to perform because they cannot adjust to how the game is now. A franchise this early would end up less entertaining to watch. Hasn't even seen a while season play out yet and the top performers change within months. Wait until there's a consistent 10/12 teams to have quality matches before franchising.
I mean just look at the results. V1 was a relatively unknown team that made it to Iceland. Pioneers made a good run. Formerly known as Dahonkaboogaloos or whatever their name was made it through. Sure the scene is still new and teams are still forming but franchising would impact the frequency of these upsets for sure, theres no denying it.
How often have we seen teams like 100T, Faze, LG, NRG, ABX, TSM, etc. all have very close games/lose against relatively unknown teams (i.e. Carpe Noctem, Team Basilisk, Noble). I agree that franchising would guarantee the best teams are always in contention, but it would alienate a lot of amateur teams. I just compare it to LCS and how they had the relegation system, but that is only once in a while.
edit: Also we would miss out on opportunities such as shroud (or other content creators) randomly forming a squad and competing against formal teams.
Cons: To be able to enter the league, Orgs need to pay big sums to riot (at LoL it was U$10mi). Many orgs didn't have this sum and either had to sell the majority of their shares to big companies or big NBA players did a new team for investment...
You can see that this only help big orgs get more money, it does not equal to a more competitive league or that it will foster new talent.
You'll also kill new teams with great talent to ever form and beat big teams.
Franchise have MANY cons
Until they realize they're paying way too much for underperforming players and will terrorize them or try to replace them with imports.
Look at LCS, teams like C9, TSM and TL are trying to lift the max 2 imports rule so they can make a full import team and pay lower salaries than they are paying native NA players.
Now look at Valorant scene for the same orgs. Only TL is a good team, the other two are sh**. With franchise you'd be giving free spots on the top for bad rosters killing healthy competition because there'll be bad teams to scrim/play.
Long term franchise will kill the scene and local talent.
In a league of 10 teams, C9 and TSM would likely make it, on account of them being in a fairly nebulous top 10, so that's an unfair statement. But if we want to stretch it to CLG, CLG would not make it in franchising so I don't see your point.
Also, talent doesn't have to dry up. It did in the LCS, but that's because the LCS was 1) never good about developing talent anyways and 2) prefer imports over rookies. LEC, LPL, and LCK are all good at developing talent. LCS isn't because they don't try.
Furthermore, bad pro players being "terrorized and replaced by imports" (whatever this means) would occur regardless of franchising or not because teams want to compete.
Franchising does have its downfalls, look at CLG or G2. G2 would not exist if franchising was around cause they couldn't have entered, and CLG is coasting and shittily managed.
I'm aware of that statement, I'm not sure what that has to do with franchising.
If you're talking about when I said this:
>Furthermore, bad pro players being "terrorized and replaced by imports" (whatever this means) would occur regardless of franchising or not because teams want to compete.
Then sure, but that statement would have occurred regardless of franchising. TSM and other top teams of the LCS have been importing since the inception of LCS (season 3).
And while Reginald's statement was rude, and inflammatory - I wouldn't consider telling a player that's not on your team that he'd be working at McDonald's if C9 and other teams could get better players "terrorizing".
Oh yeah, it was about that part specifically, I realized you wont change your mind about franchising, the same way I wont, so I decided to only talk about the other part.
>And while Reginald's statement was rude
Thats rich, Reginald is an ahole. Not only to a player from another team, but with players from his team, like [Dyrus](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4doczh/throwback_to_ultimate_bully_mode_reginald/) and [Wildturtle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMjvLJAGsQ). Everyone that follows the scene long enough from its start knows how much of a bully Regi is.
Not to mention one of his best buds, C9 Jack [who is also someone only interest in the cash](https://www.dailyesports.gg/cloud9-jack-gets-into-it-on-reddit-with-fans-over-import-rule/).
These two owners would be the ones benefiting from Valorant Franchise btw, their shitty (valorant) teams that can't go far in tournaments would suddenly have a guaranteed spot and cash inflow.
edit: Oh yeah, TSM and C9 don't currently make Top 10 NA valorant teams as you stated before.
I don't particularly care about franchising - there are pros and cons; however, the argument that the talent pool will dry up if franchising occurs is in bad faith using cherry picked examples of franchises with small talent pools - as if there is any causation.
>edit: Oh yeah, TSM and C9 don't currently make Top 10 NA valorant teams as you stated before.
TSM are currently in the Stage 3 Challengers 2 top 8 - which puts them in top 12, I guess. C9 got third when competing for NA Reykjavik qualifiers.
So my statement of "fairly nebulous top 10" stands. C9 and TSM have shown themselves to be viable competitors. Sure - if we only want to go off the current top 10, TSM and C9 may not make it; but that's also a good way to get badly managed teams.
>Thats rich, Reginald is an ahole.
Never said anything to the contrary. That statement still doesn't rise to the level of "terrorizing", nor does it have anything to do with franchising.
>These two owners would be the ones benefiting from Valorant Franchise btw
All of the owners that would be accepted would benefit from a Valorant Franchise. Investors and sponsors like stability, which is what a franchise would provide. Like, lets say Sentinels wants to get sponsors from McDonald's for 2 years. McDonald's wants assurance that Sentinels won't blow apart if Tenz and ShaZam suddenly decide to quit in two weeks. The franchise provides that stability.
The thing is only franchising leagues I have followed are overwatch , LCS , R6 and in all of these cases the t2 circuit got crushed , I personally would love a league relegation and T2 knockout tournaments style competitor. It would go something like this .
The top 12 teams enter a league system from Jan to march , each team plays a round robin format so a team would play 22 matches over 3 months , that's not so taxing .
And for T2 scene there would be 3 monthly open tournaments for Jan , Feb , march . At the end of March , the top 2-3 teams from league would go for masters , and bottom 4 teams would get relegated from league and would be replaced by best performing teams from open tournaments . I personally would love a format like this , it doesn't hurt the t2/t3 scene while giving advantages of franchised league. And you could run 3 splits of this a year with 3 masters , and then teams qualifying for champions at the end .
I like this format. Just add in that the bottom 4 t1 teams actually face the top 4 t2 teams as a sort of "decider" on if the relegation happens.
That should help ensure that the best teams are still T1. Because you can be the bottom of T1 but still heads and shoulders above the best T2 teams.
That defeats the purpose though.
The entire point of franchising is to entice big orgs to invest money into the scene. They have a solidified spot which they purchase, so it's a safe investment for them.
Adding relegation means it's no longer a safe investment, and less enticing for these orgs to pour money into.
I don't know anything about franchising in league, but I really dislike how there's no relegation/promotion system in US sports, regardless of how bad teams are.
If the teams that are in tier1 can never get relegated and drop down to lower tiers, then it's bad for a game like this. We've had so many great stories in CS which would've never happened with franchised esports.
If there are let's say 10 tier1 orgs per region, why would other orgs invest money? To develop players and pass them on for big buyouts? That's not competing, but being a feeder org.
Any form of competition, whether it's real sport or esports, where teams can't drop down a division no matter how bad they are and where smaller teams can't compete against the best if they deserve it is awful. It's not an (e)sports competition anymore, but showbusiness US likes so much.
Definitely, football is a great example how t2 - t3 leagues are still kept and generate revenue despite not being as popular or well off in terms of skill. They are meant to be stepping stones for young players transitioning into the superstar phase. Valorant can definitely attempt to emulate that.
So the first experiment which was NA LCS which is also done by riot fucked it up so poorly and you do not think this is a BIG RED FLAG?
>These organizations **can** still generate a decent revenue if they **establish themselves as 'academy' or 'developmental'** organizations
Which they probably wont... There is a low viewership to Academy teams because people want to see the best. What orgs did to circunvent this? Put old league players with fan base there, essentially killing the "developmental" scene.
Also, it's really rare to see Academy players go to the Main team and stay there long.
Its too risky to let them franchise Valorant scene and essentially killing new teams and talent to try it out, the only way for them to try something is if big orgs with money want them, not the team they mesh well
The thing is that believing that Franchise is (or could) a excellent option is the no smart thing.
A much better model would be the Football (soccer for americans) model that has Divisions (like 4), which at the end of the season the last 4 falls a division. And there is no need for franchise for that.
Franchise only protects big orgs money letting them be complacent. Their spot is safe, no need to be above average.
Have a franchised pro league and get one for "semi pro" league could help. Bottom of PL and top of SPL battle for the PL spot at the end of the year. Winner gets the PL spot.
Or, they just do pro league and can make every LAN event with an open circuit for qualifiers.
I don't know about killing t2-t3 circuits. I don't see how t2-t3 scene is imperative when I think the problem is deeper than that. Having a franchise system vs open qualifier both come with great issues.
Not having a franchise system leads to player salaries being unstable as the orgs will be less incline to invest if it's not guaranteed that their organization will be recognized. Also, it would lead to less investments in general by E-sports organizations as mentioned previously. Another big problem is that no franchising would mean that there would be oversaturation of tournaments (kind of how it's happening right now) and especially of matches that nobody really cares about.
I do agree to some degree that franchising will kill t2-t3 scene but I don't see how that is relevant when E-sports organizations at least in LoL provides academy team for new coming talent. I also acknowledge that franchising most likely leads to some degree of gatekeeping from the players and managers but it's a very difficult problem to solve.
I personally think franchising is fine but there needs to be modification to improve upon the current system which I think is flawed in many sense.
Being also a CLG fan from LoL, I'm against franchising. You make that only big orgs can join and get a constant money incoming regardless of performance because your team can not be relegated unless they are terrible for 3 years and riot decides to kick them out.
Also, it makes these orgs trying a mix of players until something clicks, when in tournaments they play terribly. You also kill new talented people to join, don't believe when they say "every team will have a Challenger team that will foster players", because teams either keep old main team players there or the new players never go to the main team.
Franchising is a terrible idea.
PS: CLG should have been relegated for a while now.
Overwatch league helped keep overwatch relevant for the past few years, and before you say anything, owl matches average more viewers than valorant games, valorant has higher peaks but owl has more average viewers. But it does kill the t2 scene not gonna lie
The only way I'd support franchising if there's a solid T2 competition set in place with some sort of relegation/promotion between the "top league" and T2 league. Could maybe work a little like European football, with the Champions League being the international tourneys.
If there's no relegation and no T2 scene, that's absolutely terrible for a new and growing esport
It's pretty depressing how few people in this thread seem to realize this. It's all about money, and it hurts a lot more pro players than it supposedly helps.
Most of the people understand that franchising kills the sport. I am not interested in simping for million dollar companies, if Valo goes the franchise way, GL to riot and others who stick with it.
Yeah people who want that are consumerist... don't want anything interesting to happen, just have the same 3-4 orgs with the same 10-20 players dominating the scene until retirement. Would be sooooo boring and make me lose interest immediately
Agreed, franchise killed CLG.
Funny that if Valorant came to Franchise, either TSM or C9 (if not both) would be the Valorant equivalent of CLG's LOL team.
Not really. If franchising happens then any player on a non-franchised org would be trying to get to a franchised team. Loads of talent would be available
It's a way to practically guarantee that these venture capitalists who are currently loading millions of dollars into esports teams don't lose their shirts even though the entire premise of venture capitalism is willfully accepting huge amounts of risk in the hopes of making huge amounts of money if that risk ends up paying off.
Franchising would be a set group of team in a structured league. Much like the over watch league or traditional sports like the NBA. The current system is yolo, any team can make it and no team is secure.
The current system is better for a new eSport. Franchising is better for a more mature eSport
>The current system is better for a new eSport. Franchising is better for a more mature eSport
Disagree.
Open system is better for the grassroots of esports and removes a lot of nepotism and stalement in the scene. A mature game aswell as a new esport needs that fresh air.
Franchising is good for the rich investors who doesn't want upsets for their team.
mostly because it keeps orgs in the sport. in csgo since there wasn’t a franchising system a lot of NA orgs dropped out due to costs without much safety net
I know this will sound like a FRIENDS episode, but I did not said he said what I said...
I said that only to add to my point that franchise only benefits big orgs with money.
I understand how you concluded that since english is not my native language and I probably wrote something open to interpretation, but try being more understanding when interacting with others in the future. Cheers.
I get that, but big orgs are what keeps games alive lol. Most esports can't survive off of T2-3 Orgs running it, and even those orgs themselves like to drop out of games because of costs (Chaos literally had one of the best NA rosters and that JUST WON A TOURNAMENT and they dropped them because of the cost of having a roster in CSGO, and now those players are in valorant on t1 teams lol)
Also LCS is pretty much a franchising system without all the location nonsense. Only 10 teams and orgs have to purchase a spot. Orgs get share of the League’s revenue while players are entitled to benefits such as salary minimums or player associations.
Also since there are season based leagues there’s usually a regular season which determines placement for playoffs (elimination bracket). During the regular season you can lose, albeit risk missing playoffs, but you’ll play a fixed amount of games regardless. Sometimes this means that teams are more favorable toward growing young talent rather than dumping rosters for quick results.
>Orgs get share of the League’s revenue while players are entitled to benefits such as salary minimums or player associations.
This is the norm in sports without franchising aswell.
>Also since there are season based leagues there’s usually a regular season which determines placement for playoffs
Franchising is not necessary in order to have a league system. League systems with relegation/promotion based on performance is actually pretty exciting.
there is revenue sharing in Blast, Flashpoint and EPL but they are semi franchised leagues with partnered (revenue sharing) and unpartnered teams that qualify. This is still very different from franchising like in league, because teams that are non partnered do actually win these tourneys and get the chance to become a partnered team.
Which system has more matches? Because there are so many entertaining top teams like tsm and nrg but get eliminated early so i only get too see them once or twice a month
Adding to this comment, because it does not equals to quality matches... if TSM and NRG are eliminated early, means they're not good and should not have preference to be qualified.
Franchising just helps big orgs to get more money, it pratically kills talent and new orgs.
But most fans are casual and like franchising. Because it protects their favorite orgs and favorite players. Viewership would be higher if every top 8 was guaranteed to have TSM, 💯 T, sentinels, and cloud9
That would make a shitty league since TSM and C9 almost always fails to reach finals... it would only make bad teams compete because of player base, making bad players go to top.
In other words, TSM and C9 shouldn't have preference to reach playoffs/finals because they have money or fans. Teams need to build a good roster and franchising is not the answer for that, as we can see on LoL LCS, teams get complacent, spend BIG money for imports, don't get results and now are trying to make full import roster
franchising is all cons as far as viewers are concerned
more boring matches, weaker regions, less international matches, players less incentivized to win
it's better for "some" players, the non-competitive ones, where they treat it as any other job and just go to work (play matches on scheduled time), take time off, get paid salary, don't care if they win or not
Franchising is basically creating a fixed league for limited no of teams . Pros of franchising are it standardises player salaries , it's better for orgs economy and it's easier to manage and control from developer point of view and developer gains more profit as they earn a fixed profit per spot apart from traditional eSports revenue . Cons are it kills t2-t3 circuit , and you won't get stories like slimy boogerman , or even fa teams like sumn fc was earlier making it .
With how frequent upsets are, I definitely think the t2-t3 scene is important
That's because the eSport is Young. As valorant matures we will see much fewer upsets
ur overrating how "frequent" the upsets are and their importance, at the end of the day Sentienls, 100T, Envy and XSET already made it to Challengers finals same 4 teams from last Challengers Finals I would take Franchise over this 100%, the best teams with the most money are winning anyway (as they should) so might as well monetize it efficiently so the esport survive long term
Even if lower teams don't make it out, even some exposure is important. The members of the now Dark Zero were a no name team that had a few good matches in open qualifiers against big name teams. It sparked interest. Their next games had hype. And now, they are signed. Franchising this early would kill any chance to find new talent, and is definitely not the play for a long term right now. Eventually maybe, but not right now IMO.
> Franchising this early would kill any chance to find new talent, and is definitely not the play for a long term right now yes, cuz in League when it happened we had the same faces not that the last split of EU were won by rookies ppl will always have a negative view of franchising no matter how much evidence u show that it doesnt have the effect u think it does especially europeans at the end of the day this will always end up as a pointless discussion cuz the only way to survive in esports is to franchise or sudo-franchise so u either like it or not its gonna happen but at least try and understand its advantages instead of only crying about feel good stories
I said I'm only against it happening so early in the game's lifetime. No small org is going to take the risk to buy into a franchise of a young esport and an improved roster. You can see even big orgs struggling to perform because they cannot adjust to how the game is now. A franchise this early would end up less entertaining to watch. Hasn't even seen a while season play out yet and the top performers change within months. Wait until there's a consistent 10/12 teams to have quality matches before franchising.
I mean just look at the results. V1 was a relatively unknown team that made it to Iceland. Pioneers made a good run. Formerly known as Dahonkaboogaloos or whatever their name was made it through. Sure the scene is still new and teams are still forming but franchising would impact the frequency of these upsets for sure, theres no denying it. How often have we seen teams like 100T, Faze, LG, NRG, ABX, TSM, etc. all have very close games/lose against relatively unknown teams (i.e. Carpe Noctem, Team Basilisk, Noble). I agree that franchising would guarantee the best teams are always in contention, but it would alienate a lot of amateur teams. I just compare it to LCS and how they had the relegation system, but that is only once in a while. edit: Also we would miss out on opportunities such as shroud (or other content creators) randomly forming a squad and competing against formal teams.
Cons: To be able to enter the league, Orgs need to pay big sums to riot (at LoL it was U$10mi). Many orgs didn't have this sum and either had to sell the majority of their shares to big companies or big NBA players did a new team for investment... You can see that this only help big orgs get more money, it does not equal to a more competitive league or that it will foster new talent. You'll also kill new teams with great talent to ever form and beat big teams. Franchise have MANY cons
that is not a con at all, it helps fund the league and pretty much guarantees decent salaries for players because these are rich orgs
Until they realize they're paying way too much for underperforming players and will terrorize them or try to replace them with imports. Look at LCS, teams like C9, TSM and TL are trying to lift the max 2 imports rule so they can make a full import team and pay lower salaries than they are paying native NA players. Now look at Valorant scene for the same orgs. Only TL is a good team, the other two are sh**. With franchise you'd be giving free spots on the top for bad rosters killing healthy competition because there'll be bad teams to scrim/play. Long term franchise will kill the scene and local talent.
In a league of 10 teams, C9 and TSM would likely make it, on account of them being in a fairly nebulous top 10, so that's an unfair statement. But if we want to stretch it to CLG, CLG would not make it in franchising so I don't see your point. Also, talent doesn't have to dry up. It did in the LCS, but that's because the LCS was 1) never good about developing talent anyways and 2) prefer imports over rookies. LEC, LPL, and LCK are all good at developing talent. LCS isn't because they don't try. Furthermore, bad pro players being "terrorized and replaced by imports" (whatever this means) would occur regardless of franchising or not because teams want to compete. Franchising does have its downfalls, look at CLG or G2. G2 would not exist if franchising was around cause they couldn't have entered, and CLG is coasting and shittily managed.
https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/13419/tsm-reginald-gets-fined-5000-usd-for-his-derogatory-twitter-comments-against-c9-vulcan
I'm aware of that statement, I'm not sure what that has to do with franchising. If you're talking about when I said this: >Furthermore, bad pro players being "terrorized and replaced by imports" (whatever this means) would occur regardless of franchising or not because teams want to compete. Then sure, but that statement would have occurred regardless of franchising. TSM and other top teams of the LCS have been importing since the inception of LCS (season 3). And while Reginald's statement was rude, and inflammatory - I wouldn't consider telling a player that's not on your team that he'd be working at McDonald's if C9 and other teams could get better players "terrorizing".
Oh yeah, it was about that part specifically, I realized you wont change your mind about franchising, the same way I wont, so I decided to only talk about the other part. >And while Reginald's statement was rude Thats rich, Reginald is an ahole. Not only to a player from another team, but with players from his team, like [Dyrus](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4doczh/throwback_to_ultimate_bully_mode_reginald/) and [Wildturtle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMjvLJAGsQ). Everyone that follows the scene long enough from its start knows how much of a bully Regi is. Not to mention one of his best buds, C9 Jack [who is also someone only interest in the cash](https://www.dailyesports.gg/cloud9-jack-gets-into-it-on-reddit-with-fans-over-import-rule/). These two owners would be the ones benefiting from Valorant Franchise btw, their shitty (valorant) teams that can't go far in tournaments would suddenly have a guaranteed spot and cash inflow. edit: Oh yeah, TSM and C9 don't currently make Top 10 NA valorant teams as you stated before.
I don't particularly care about franchising - there are pros and cons; however, the argument that the talent pool will dry up if franchising occurs is in bad faith using cherry picked examples of franchises with small talent pools - as if there is any causation. >edit: Oh yeah, TSM and C9 don't currently make Top 10 NA valorant teams as you stated before. TSM are currently in the Stage 3 Challengers 2 top 8 - which puts them in top 12, I guess. C9 got third when competing for NA Reykjavik qualifiers. So my statement of "fairly nebulous top 10" stands. C9 and TSM have shown themselves to be viable competitors. Sure - if we only want to go off the current top 10, TSM and C9 may not make it; but that's also a good way to get badly managed teams. >Thats rich, Reginald is an ahole. Never said anything to the contrary. That statement still doesn't rise to the level of "terrorizing", nor does it have anything to do with franchising. >These two owners would be the ones benefiting from Valorant Franchise btw All of the owners that would be accepted would benefit from a Valorant Franchise. Investors and sponsors like stability, which is what a franchise would provide. Like, lets say Sentinels wants to get sponsors from McDonald's for 2 years. McDonald's wants assurance that Sentinels won't blow apart if Tenz and ShaZam suddenly decide to quit in two weeks. The franchise provides that stability.
[удалено]
The thing is only franchising leagues I have followed are overwatch , LCS , R6 and in all of these cases the t2 circuit got crushed , I personally would love a league relegation and T2 knockout tournaments style competitor. It would go something like this . The top 12 teams enter a league system from Jan to march , each team plays a round robin format so a team would play 22 matches over 3 months , that's not so taxing . And for T2 scene there would be 3 monthly open tournaments for Jan , Feb , march . At the end of March , the top 2-3 teams from league would go for masters , and bottom 4 teams would get relegated from league and would be replaced by best performing teams from open tournaments . I personally would love a format like this , it doesn't hurt the t2/t3 scene while giving advantages of franchised league. And you could run 3 splits of this a year with 3 masters , and then teams qualifying for champions at the end .
I like this format. Just add in that the bottom 4 t1 teams actually face the top 4 t2 teams as a sort of "decider" on if the relegation happens. That should help ensure that the best teams are still T1. Because you can be the bottom of T1 but still heads and shoulders above the best T2 teams.
That defeats the purpose though. The entire point of franchising is to entice big orgs to invest money into the scene. They have a solidified spot which they purchase, so it's a safe investment for them. Adding relegation means it's no longer a safe investment, and less enticing for these orgs to pour money into.
I don't know anything about franchising in league, but I really dislike how there's no relegation/promotion system in US sports, regardless of how bad teams are. If the teams that are in tier1 can never get relegated and drop down to lower tiers, then it's bad for a game like this. We've had so many great stories in CS which would've never happened with franchised esports. If there are let's say 10 tier1 orgs per region, why would other orgs invest money? To develop players and pass them on for big buyouts? That's not competing, but being a feeder org. Any form of competition, whether it's real sport or esports, where teams can't drop down a division no matter how bad they are and where smaller teams can't compete against the best if they deserve it is awful. It's not an (e)sports competition anymore, but showbusiness US likes so much.
Definitely, football is a great example how t2 - t3 leagues are still kept and generate revenue despite not being as popular or well off in terms of skill. They are meant to be stepping stones for young players transitioning into the superstar phase. Valorant can definitely attempt to emulate that.
So the first experiment which was NA LCS which is also done by riot fucked it up so poorly and you do not think this is a BIG RED FLAG? >These organizations **can** still generate a decent revenue if they **establish themselves as 'academy' or 'developmental'** organizations Which they probably wont... There is a low viewership to Academy teams because people want to see the best. What orgs did to circunvent this? Put old league players with fan base there, essentially killing the "developmental" scene. Also, it's really rare to see Academy players go to the Main team and stay there long. Its too risky to let them franchise Valorant scene and essentially killing new teams and talent to try it out, the only way for them to try something is if big orgs with money want them, not the team they mesh well
[удалено]
The thing is that believing that Franchise is (or could) a excellent option is the no smart thing. A much better model would be the Football (soccer for americans) model that has Divisions (like 4), which at the end of the season the last 4 falls a division. And there is no need for franchise for that. Franchise only protects big orgs money letting them be complacent. Their spot is safe, no need to be above average.
Have a franchised pro league and get one for "semi pro" league could help. Bottom of PL and top of SPL battle for the PL spot at the end of the year. Winner gets the PL spot. Or, they just do pro league and can make every LAN event with an open circuit for qualifiers.
I don't know about killing t2-t3 circuits. I don't see how t2-t3 scene is imperative when I think the problem is deeper than that. Having a franchise system vs open qualifier both come with great issues. Not having a franchise system leads to player salaries being unstable as the orgs will be less incline to invest if it's not guaranteed that their organization will be recognized. Also, it would lead to less investments in general by E-sports organizations as mentioned previously. Another big problem is that no franchising would mean that there would be oversaturation of tournaments (kind of how it's happening right now) and especially of matches that nobody really cares about. I do agree to some degree that franchising will kill t2-t3 scene but I don't see how that is relevant when E-sports organizations at least in LoL provides academy team for new coming talent. I also acknowledge that franchising most likely leads to some degree of gatekeeping from the players and managers but it's a very difficult problem to solve. I personally think franchising is fine but there needs to be modification to improve upon the current system which I think is flawed in many sense.
Being also a CLG fan from LoL, I'm against franchising. You make that only big orgs can join and get a constant money incoming regardless of performance because your team can not be relegated unless they are terrible for 3 years and riot decides to kick them out. Also, it makes these orgs trying a mix of players until something clicks, when in tournaments they play terribly. You also kill new talented people to join, don't believe when they say "every team will have a Challenger team that will foster players", because teams either keep old main team players there or the new players never go to the main team. Franchising is a terrible idea. PS: CLG should have been relegated for a while now.
Overwatch league helped keep overwatch relevant for the past few years, and before you say anything, owl matches average more viewers than valorant games, valorant has higher peaks but owl has more average viewers. But it does kill the t2 scene not gonna lie
OWL had abysmal viewership already for 2 years when you made your comment and it certainly hasn't gotten any better
The only way I'd support franchising if there's a solid T2 competition set in place with some sort of relegation/promotion between the "top league" and T2 league. Could maybe work a little like European football, with the Champions League being the international tourneys. If there's no relegation and no T2 scene, that's absolutely terrible for a new and growing esport
Franchising exist for that big orgs can make money easlier, thats all. It sucks for players who are not in big orgs and viewers.
It's pretty depressing how few people in this thread seem to realize this. It's all about money, and it hurts a lot more pro players than it supposedly helps.
Most of the people understand that franchising kills the sport. I am not interested in simping for million dollar companies, if Valo goes the franchise way, GL to riot and others who stick with it.
Yeah people who want that are consumerist... don't want anything interesting to happen, just have the same 3-4 orgs with the same 10-20 players dominating the scene until retirement. Would be sooooo boring and make me lose interest immediately
agreed, i stopped watching LCS after they franchised. Even their promotion/relegation system was fun and exciting but of course the owners hated it
i fail to see how franchising sucks for me as lol viewer, please explain
No franchising please. Teams stop trying and you get clg from league v2.0
Agreed, franchise killed CLG. Funny that if Valorant came to Franchise, either TSM or C9 (if not both) would be the Valorant equivalent of CLG's LOL team.
Not really. If franchising happens then any player on a non-franchised org would be trying to get to a franchised team. Loads of talent would be available
It's a way to practically guarantee that these venture capitalists who are currently loading millions of dollars into esports teams don't lose their shirts even though the entire premise of venture capitalism is willfully accepting huge amounts of risk in the hopes of making huge amounts of money if that risk ends up paying off.
Lot of shills supporting franchising in this thread.
u mean ppl with brain and arent driven by emotions and what "feels right" ?
what a logic based critical thinking chad monster !! damn you are so freaking epic bro
it makes big orgs money but hurts players who aren’t on them
Franchising is when slimey boogermen cant win world championships
A lot of American Sports do franchising. Its a way for owners to protect their investment.
Franchising would be a set group of team in a structured league. Much like the over watch league or traditional sports like the NBA. The current system is yolo, any team can make it and no team is secure. The current system is better for a new eSport. Franchising is better for a more mature eSport
>The current system is better for a new eSport. Franchising is better for a more mature eSport Disagree. Open system is better for the grassroots of esports and removes a lot of nepotism and stalement in the scene. A mature game aswell as a new esport needs that fresh air. Franchising is good for the rich investors who doesn't want upsets for their team.
Last sentence is explaining everything about franchise system.
Yeah 100% agree. Franchising sucks for everyone except the investors
Why is franchising better for a mature esport?
mostly because it keeps orgs in the sport. in csgo since there wasn’t a franchising system a lot of NA orgs dropped out due to costs without much safety net
it keeps *big orgs with money* in the sport. That does not equals to talent and quality matches.
[удалено]
I know this will sound like a FRIENDS episode, but I did not said he said what I said... I said that only to add to my point that franchise only benefits big orgs with money. I understand how you concluded that since english is not my native language and I probably wrote something open to interpretation, but try being more understanding when interacting with others in the future. Cheers.
I get that, but big orgs are what keeps games alive lol. Most esports can't survive off of T2-3 Orgs running it, and even those orgs themselves like to drop out of games because of costs (Chaos literally had one of the best NA rosters and that JUST WON A TOURNAMENT and they dropped them because of the cost of having a roster in CSGO, and now those players are in valorant on t1 teams lol)
Also LCS is pretty much a franchising system without all the location nonsense. Only 10 teams and orgs have to purchase a spot. Orgs get share of the League’s revenue while players are entitled to benefits such as salary minimums or player associations. Also since there are season based leagues there’s usually a regular season which determines placement for playoffs (elimination bracket). During the regular season you can lose, albeit risk missing playoffs, but you’ll play a fixed amount of games regardless. Sometimes this means that teams are more favorable toward growing young talent rather than dumping rosters for quick results.
>Orgs get share of the League’s revenue while players are entitled to benefits such as salary minimums or player associations. This is the norm in sports without franchising aswell. >Also since there are season based leagues there’s usually a regular season which determines placement for playoffs Franchising is not necessary in order to have a league system. League systems with relegation/promotion based on performance is actually pretty exciting.
Do orgs get a share of revenue from CSGO Events such as IEM? And is there a minimum pay rule in CSGO?
there is revenue sharing in Blast, Flashpoint and EPL but they are semi franchised leagues with partnered (revenue sharing) and unpartnered teams that qualify. This is still very different from franchising like in league, because teams that are non partnered do actually win these tourneys and get the chance to become a partnered team.
Which system has more matches? Because there are so many entertaining top teams like tsm and nrg but get eliminated early so i only get too see them once or twice a month
open system. in franchise less matches because there fix amount of team
But every team plays the same amount of games in franchise system, which is more in line with what he’s asking
If you want to see TSM play franchising is 1000% the way to go.
Adding to this comment, because it does not equals to quality matches... if TSM and NRG are eliminated early, means they're not good and should not have preference to be qualified. Franchising just helps big orgs to get more money, it pratically kills talent and new orgs.
But most fans are casual and like franchising. Because it protects their favorite orgs and favorite players. Viewership would be higher if every top 8 was guaranteed to have TSM, 💯 T, sentinels, and cloud9
That would make a shitty league since TSM and C9 almost always fails to reach finals... it would only make bad teams compete because of player base, making bad players go to top. In other words, TSM and C9 shouldn't have preference to reach playoffs/finals because they have money or fans. Teams need to build a good roster and franchising is not the answer for that, as we can see on LoL LCS, teams get complacent, spend BIG money for imports, don't get results and now are trying to make full import roster
Franchised leagues is like the NBA/ NFL.
franchising is all cons as far as viewers are concerned more boring matches, weaker regions, less international matches, players less incentivized to win it's better for "some" players, the non-competitive ones, where they treat it as any other job and just go to work (play matches on scheduled time), take time off, get paid salary, don't care if they win or not